And
he is currently the candidate to beat in the Republican primaries. It
speaks volumes about the Republican base.

I
considered his candidacy in 2012 to be a joke and I maintain the same
opinion this time around. He will NOT be
the Republican nominee.
Last time, I correctly predicted that Mitt Romney was going to win
the nomination and lose the election to President Obama. This year, I
am not quite sure who would win the Republican nomination (I am
hoping for a Marco
Rubio/Carly
Fiorina ticket).

Firstly,
it's a mathematical question. Considering the
large number of Republican candidates who are vying to become their
party's nominee, one does not require a significant portion of the
voters' support to become the front runner. As the campaign drags on
(there's still more than a year to go!), the number of candidates
will inevitably whittle down. As the voters are left with fewer
choices, their support for different candidates will merge and
coalesce to form larger blocs.

I'm
also relieved by the fact that, like track races, whoever starts out
as the front runner does not always end up being the front runner –
they have more to lose than to gain.

Secondly,
as I said already, it's still early in the primaries season and this
is when
the most partisan supporters come out to play. When less excitable voters begin to pay attention to the election process, and the primaries are no longer dominated by the extreme elements of party
politics, the candidates will inevitably become more moderate as they try to
move to the middle. This is known as the median
voter theorem. When this happens, Trump's ability to use bombast
and rhetoric will no longer be as effective as they are now.

It
is for those same reasons that I can say with near certainty that
Bernie Sanders will not be the Democratic nominee either. Sanders
will (and already has) forced
Hillary Clinton to move to the left and Trump has forced some
Republican candidates (notably Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and Scott Walker)
to
become as stupid as he is. However, that will be the end of their
role in this race.

If
Sanders is the Democratic nominee and Trump is not the Republican nominee, despite the
crowds that Sanders is getting at his campaign rallies (which are not all
that different from the crowds that Ralph Nader and Ron Paul were
able to boast), it will guarantee a Republican victory. On the other
hand, if Trump is the Republican nominee and the Sanders is not the Democratic nominee, that
would ensure a Democratic victory.

So
what would happen if they both become their respective parties'
nominees?

Both
Sanders and Trump are demagogues, but of different stripes. Sanders'
demagoguery has almost always been tied to progressive economics
(inequality, tax the rich, expand Medicare and Medicaid, support
labor unions, etc.). For all intents and purposes, Sanders is an
ideological demagogue. As such, there is very little support (if any)
for Sanders among conservative voters.

Trump's
views, however, are unprincipled and opportunist. Although he
certainly commands more support from conservative voters, some
of his views would gain him support from progressives. In other
words, Trump is not so much an ideological demagogue, but rather a
personality-driven demagogue.

Instead
of going into details, Trump relies on rhetoric for mass
hypnosis. His usual go-to battle cry is “take our country back”
or “make America great again.” The fact of the matter is that if
you leave out the details, it allows the listeners to fill in the
blanks with their own imagination.

It's
the same reason President Obama's mantra of “hope and change” was
so effective in 2008.

And
as much as I despise Trump, credit should be given where it is due.
He is a masterful salesman. One thing that you learn if you ever get a job
in sales is to never talk after a customer says he or she wants to buy
something. If you keep talking, for whatever reason, the buyer might
change his or her mind. The rule is to persuade, stop talking, and move
on to the next customer. And that's what Trump does with his battle
cries.

Trump
never gives the answer himself. And it's brilliant. Why would he when
it's so much more effective to not do so and let everyone else do
it for him?

Then
there's the phrase “make America great again.” Great again. What
does that imply? Firstly, it implies that America is not great anymore. That
is a powerful emotional tool that Trump is playing with. It instills
a sense of loss in people. I imagine that it must have been the way
the British felt when they started to liberate their long-held
colonies. We know that this is a powerful tool because psychologists
and economists have proven long ago that people
are more affected by the prospect of losing something than the prospect of gaining something. But
unlike the British who had no choice but to watch their once-great
empire collapse, Trump dangles the word “again” like an angler
fish lures its prey with a dull light in the abyss. Despite the
sense of loss, the word “again” gives people a sense of hope.

Give
people a faceless enemy to fear, a sense of loss to cry about, and then let them scratch their itch.
It's manipulative and it's brilliant.

If
the election does end up being a choice between Sanders and Trump, my
guess is that, at least for the next four years, we are all going to
have to get used to the idea of the White House getting plated in
gold.The
one thing that gives me comfort, however, is that neither man will win their
respective parties' nominations.

The first thing that I thought when reading the article was that Occupy Democrats really should learn to date their articles. As Sanders' list was a response to an op-ed piece that was signed by 80 Wall Street CEOs that advocated for austerity spending in the United States, I naturally thought that this was a recent article. I searched all of the Wall Street Journal to find the op-ed piece but couldn't find it.

Was
the sub-prime mortgage crisis a result of recklessness? Without a
doubt. But was it illegal? Hardly.

2) “Before telling us why we should cut Social Security, Medicare and
other vitally important programs, these CEOs might want to take a
hard look at their responsibility for causing the deficit and this
terrible recession.”

The
bailout of 2008 was approximately US$700 billion and was given out to
a total of 951 recipients. Of those 951 recipients, 123 companies have so far failed to repay the government and resulted in a loss to taxpayers.
However, even after including the losses incurred from those 123
companies, taxpayers have made a net profit from the bailout in
total. Thus far, taxpayers have profited by US$57.7 billion.

Even
if we take the Roosevelt Institute's much lower price estimate,
whereas the bailout of 2008 was a one-time payment of US$700 billion,
which resulted in a US$57.7 billion profit for taxpayers, since 2008,
the US government has spent a total of US$1.484 trillion on welfare.

The
bailout was hugely problematic for many reasons, and it is something
that everyone should have opposed from the beginning. But at the very least, it generated a
profit for taxpayers. What has spending on welfare gotten people? Has
it lifted people out of poverty? No, it hasn't. But wasn't that the goal of welfare?

3) “Our Wall Street friends might also want to show some courage of
their own by suggesting that the wealthiest people in this country,
like them, start paying their fair share of taxes.”

“Fair”
is a tricky word. It can mean different things to different people.
That's why Sanders and others like him keep using that word. But
let's look at the numbers, shall we?

According to the Pew Research Center, those
with adjusted gross incomes of more than US$250,000 paid nearly half
of all individual income taxes. In contrast, people whose incomes
were less than $50,000 paid just 6.2% of total taxes.

Whether paying nearly half of the income tax is fair or not is open to debate. But people should not pretend or insinuate or otherwise that the less well-off are somehow paying more than the well-off.

4) “...at least a dozen of the companies avoided paying any federal
income taxes in recent years, and even received more than $6.4
billion in tax refunds from the IRS since 2008.”

We
should get the terminology right. The federal income taxes that
corporations pay are called corporate taxes. And it's true that many
corporations do not pay corporate taxes. That is because there are
two ways to tax a corporation.

The
first way is to consider the organisation as a single entity and tax
it accordingly, thus taxing any surpluses or profits that the corporation makes at the
organizational level. A corporation that chooses to pay its taxes
this way is called a C Corporation.

The
second way is to tax the individuals who get money from the
corporation. A corporation that chooses to pay its taxes this way
is called an S Corporation.

An
S corporation, for United States federal income tax purposes, is a
corporation that makes a valid election to be taxed under Sub-chapter
S of Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.

In general, S
corporations do not pay any federal income taxes. Instead, the
corporation’s income or losses are divided among and passed through
to its shareholders. The shareholders must then report the income or
loss on their own individual income tax returns. This concept is
called single taxation; if the corporation is taxed as a C
corporation, it will face double taxation, meaning both the
corporation’s profits, and the shareholders’ dividends, will be
taxed.

So,
it is true that many corporations do not pay the federal corporate
income tax. But that is because individual shareholders elect to pay
the personal income tax on profits, not the corporate one.

Whether or not dividing the tax schemes this way is equitable or efficient is a different topic. However, using the
fact that many corporations do not pay organizational corporate taxes to imply that that is some kind of evidence of widespread tax dodging is
tantamount to lying.

The
phrase “close the loopholes” is the refuge of the fool.
It is easy to say “close the loopholes” and end the debate
feeling like a self-righteous 19-year-old Political Science major who has
discovered the Holy Grail that would cure all of society's ills. But there is a reason
tax loopholes exist.

One of the reasons that corporate taxes are pernicious is that they encourage
businesses to use debt finance, rather than equity finance even though debt
finance makes companies riskier. That is because payments on debt are tax deductible, and dividends are not. This gives many businesses
strong incentive to use debt rather than equity finance.

So
why not end the deductibles on corporate debt payments? That is
because if that “loophole” was closed, that would put illiquid industrial
firms with heavy capital costs at a MASSIVE disadvantage.

If you think
Detroit is suffering now, wait and see what would happen if Sanders and his supporters get what they want and all these pesky loopholes get closed. I'll be here with a bucket of popcorn
while the Social Justice Warrior types once again claim that this hypothetical future is
further evidence that The Man hates black people.

6) “Many of the companies also have outsourced hundreds of thousands
of American jobs to China and other low wage countries, forcing their
workers to receive unemployment insurance and other federal benefits.
In other words, these are some of the same people who have
significantly caused the deficit to explode over the last four
years.”

Firstly,
outsourcing jobs is important to ensure that the prices of goods and
services remain cheap and that businesses can remain competitive.

If
Sanders could get things done his way, the vast majority of American
factory workers would still have union-wage jobs because they would
still be producing television sets in America. That
sounds good except that those television sets would be much more
expensive than television sets from, say, Korea or Thailand. American
factory workers might earn a bit of coin under Sanders' economic
plan, but everyone else not working in factories would see that their
money buys them fewer goods and services.

There
are two types of Fortress America. The first one is the type proposed
by conservatives and neo-cons. A powerful American military
that can eliminate threats anywhere in the world and a country that would close its
borders to brown-skinned and yellow-skinned people who might want to commit acts of
terrorism against Americans. Except that the US' military is
already practically uncontested but it still has a difficult time trying to
completely defeat illiterate goat-lovers.

The
second one is the type proposed by progressives. A rich American
workforce that will allow people to live as comfortably(?) as they
did under the New Deal and a country that would close its borders to
trade with brown-skinned and yellow-skinned people who might be able
to sell things more cheaply.Except that a choice has to be made –
pursue inefficient economic policies that lead to meteoric rising
prices and economic stagnation OR pursue comparative advantages and
creative destruction that lead to cheaper goods and services for as
many people as possible and economic productivity, which unfortunately
also comes with job insecurity.

You
must choose one or the other. You cannot have your cake and eat it,
too.

7) “These are the names of TRAITORS who have forsaken their people and
nation to worship at the altar of greed:”

And
THIS is what it comes down to, isn't it? Occupy Democrats, the Occupy
Movement in general, Sanders, his supporters, etc. do not understand
economics. And even though information is free and open to all, they
do not want it. They do not want the facts. After all, facts are so
TL;DR.

What
they want are enemies to hate and traitors to blame. Anyone to blame
for all their problems aside from themselves.

But
the likes of Occupy Democrats who chant “Go, Bernie, Go!” without
actually looking into the facts? They are not nearly as smart as they
like to think they are.

If
you have read this whole thing and you also
happen to support Sanders, believe me when I say that I am not telling you to support Marco
Rubio or Rand Paul. God knows that they are lying snakes in the
grass, too. I don't expect to change your opinions or your core
beliefs.

But, God, I dearly hope that I have given you cause to try
to see for yourselves what you are advocating.

Subscribe to

Google+ Followers

About Me

My name is John Lee and I am currently the editor and writer behind the independently-run blog, “The Korean Foreigner.”

Recently, I have also begun to work as a freelance copy editor for Freedom Factory. Here, with permission from Freedom Factory, I shall post English translations of Freedom Factory’s weekly newsletter “Freedom Voice.”